What is the LNG import facility proposed in New Zealand?

It is a proposed project to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) into New Zealand to supplement domestic energy supply, particularly during shortages.

Why are climate lawyers opposing the LNG import facility?

They argue it could increase New Zealand’s reliance on fossil fuels, undermine emissions targets, and that renewable alternatives have not been properly considered.

What alternatives are being suggested instead of LNG?

Alternatives include expanding rooftop solar, investing in battery storage, and improving access to financing for renewable energy systems.

What is the controversy around the Government’s modelling?

Critics say the Government has not released the modelling used to justify the LNG project, making it difficult to assess whether it is economically or environmentally sound.

Lawyers For Climate Action Welcomes Any Suggestion That Government Is Reconsidering Its LNG Import Facility – Lawyers for Climate Action

New Zealand is staring down a fuel shock driven by global instability — and instead of doubling down on renewable energy, the Government is flirting with locking us into imported gas. The proposed LNG import facility is now under fresh scrutiny, with climate lawyers warning the numbers don’t stack up and the alternatives haven’t even been seriously considered.

“In light of growing fossil fuel prices, recent reports suggest the Government is reconsidering whether to proceed with an LNG import facility.”

“Lawyers for Climate Action welcomes any suggestion that the Government is reconsidering its LNG import facility – and urges the Government to consider renewable, low-emissions alternatives instead to both bolster New Zealand’s energy sovereignty, and meet our climate obligations”, says Jessica Palairet, Executive Director, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ.

– Advertisement –

“Prime Minister Luxon has stated that the LNG import facility will only proceed if the economic case stacks up, But you can’t claim the numbers stack up if you won’t show anyone the numbers.”

The LNG gamble in a world already on fire

“The continuing war in the Middle East has reminded us all how exposed we are to global fossil fuel markets. With our fuel prices soaring, and the increasing frequency of supply chain disruptions, it’s the last thing we should be doing to such crises”, says Palairet.

“With all of this risk, it’s even harder to understand why the Government would continue to proceed with the procurement of the LNG import facility without first considering cheaper, renewable, home-grown alternatives.”

“For example, we could rapidly expand rooftop solar on homes, farms and businesses – the cheapest form of delivered energy available. Access to finance to overcome upfront costs and incentives for household solar would drastically cut Kiwis’ power bills – saving the average home about $1000 a year. Investing in more battery capacity would allow that power to be stored and fed back into the grid when demand is highest. Done well, this could make communities more resilient too – helping to keep power flowing during storms or other disruptions that might knock out centralised infrastructure.”

“These alternatives also offer the possibility of much needed emissions reductions that could help us to meet our domestic emissions budgets and our obligations under the Paris Agreement.”

“New Zealand is 82 million tonnes short of meeting its 2030 commitment under the Paris Agreement, and we are projected to miss our 2035 domestic target, as well – which the Minister of Climate Change has a legal duty to meet under the Climate Change Response Act”, says Palairet 1

“Developing an energy policy that would help us reduce emissions and meet our legal obligations seems like a win-win, yet when the Government decided to move ahead with the LNG import facility, these options were barely considered.”

So where’s the modelling, and why hasn’t anyone seen it?

“Along with our partners, Lawyers for Climate Action has been seeking the information the Government relied upon in making the decision to proceed with the LNG import facility for weeks. Despite promises in early February to provide the modelling it relied on “pretty shortly,” that modelling has still not been provided, even after urgent requests for its release.”

“We have now made a complaint with the Ombudsman, focusing particularly on the Government’s failure to release the Concept Consulting report”, says Palairet.

“Prime Minister Luxon makes an obvious point when he says that the economic case for LNG needs to stack up, but it’s hard to be confident in that case when it has not been properly compared against the alternatives, and when there has been no independent analysis of the underlying modelling.”

“The Government should certainly consider the economic case for LNG, but it should also undertake a comprehensive, system-wide assessment of all alternatives so it can clearly demonstrate to New Zealanders that LNG is the best solution, economically and for the climate.”